 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Doe v. Diocese of Winona11/30/2004
claims for negligent retention and breach of fiduciary duty. Appellant therefore argues that because of respondent's silence, he was prevented from asserting his claims until 2002, when he learned about respondent's role in covering up the abuse.
In the circumstances of this case, the existence of a fiduciary relationship need not be discussed. Rather, a correct decision rests on the conclusion by the district court that appellant, with reasonable diligence, could have discovered the pertinent facts no later than 1994. The record shows that in 1986, appellant had specific knowledge that respondent broke its promise to keep Adamson away from other boys and specific knowledge that other Adamson victims had successfully sued respondent for damages. The record also shows that appellant knew in 1986 that respondent admitted wrongdoing, that he could have filed suit against respondent at that time, but that he chose not to for personal reasons. The record further reflects that appellant received a letter from Bishop Vlazny acknowledging the abuse and offering his assistance. But appellant rejected the offer because of his belief that "nothing had changed," and because he did not trust Bishop Vlazny. This evidence demonstrates that appellant knew or reasonably should have known of respondent's alleged fraudulent role in the sexual abuse allegations by 1986, and at the latest, by 1994.
Appellant asserts that his knowledge was incomplete because he did not know until recently of evidence that the church could have dealt with prior misconduct by Adamson before appellant's abuse, so that he could not have brought his claim before 2002. But the record demonstrates that with reasonable diligence, appellant could have discovered this information. Furthermore, appellant did not need to know all specific evidence that might support a claim in order for the statute of limitations to begin to run in cases that set forth allegations of fraud. See Kassan v. Kassan, 400 N.W.2d 346, 350 (Minn. App. 1987) (stating that suspicions about fraudulent activity trigger the limitations period even though the party does not act immediately on those suspicions), review denied (Minn. Apr. 23, 1987). As stated above, the record shows that appellant had information that respondent acted in a fraudulent manner.
The district court did not err in its summary judgment dismissing appellant's claims as time-barred.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|